They don't care if you resell your pixel phone to a friend or put it on craigslist. They care if you and a thousand other people are being paid to purchase stock for an unauthorized reseller.
Google (and any other product company) wants their products to be sold through authorized channels only so they can manage distribution, keep pricing consistent, and ensure that the devices are legitimate and have not been tampered with before sale.
Customers receiving phones with malware pre-installed is a real problem for companies like oneplus and xaiomi who don't clamp down on unauthorized resellers.
That's a fair point, but the only reason this kind of thing happened is because they purchased their phone via Google from their Google Account, and the consequence, their account being disabled, is really out of proportion with the act of selling the phone to a reseller. I think it would be more fair for Google to limit the ability to purchase products in the future for people known to have done this, but significantly unfair/burdensome to disable their account as their account potentially has their entire life on it. It would be akin to the power company deciding something you did was "bad" and turning off your power, or your landlord kicking you out because of something "bad" they didn't like, regardless of your "bad" action.
Dont you thing of these people who "participate in an organized ring" had a real business - that was scammed they would remain quiet? Take for example PPI insurance scam in UK.
Copied from below:
FFS. If you're going to participate in an organized ring to deprive people of buying a scarce item so that you can flip it to your ring leader for a profit so that the ring leader can then mark it up and sell it for considerably more then you deserve what's coming to you.
This isn't just about reselling an individual phone. They knew full well what they were doing was shady.
Because if you have a bad experience with a Pixel phone, you'll complain about it on social media.
Never mind that it's not their device anymore. Never mind that your problem is because the reseller pried it open and swapped out the battery. Never mind the malware the reseller loaded. Never mind the 30% price premium and "Advanced Warranty" you had to buy, because Google's site was out of stock. Never mind the battery-draining Candy Crunch [sic] game you installed because you mis-clicked.
These days, both Apple and Google are held responsible for anything that happens with their phones, no matter what else goes on in the ecosystem. No wonder they try to control the experience as much as possible.
"Photoshop for audio," seems so obvious, I'm surprised we haven't seen this before. (After all, the underlying technology has been around for a while now.)
Is is possible to include some kind rich text/html editor that can send data back to a server via JSON? Is it possible to send any user data back to a server with Jasonette?
Unless you are working for a discount, I don't see why an employee should be entitled to ANY equity just because they happened to show up before anyone else. The fact that you may be responsible for a large swath of a company's profit is beside the point. As an employee, you are a commodity.
If I write a book, I'm not giving my web designer a percentage of the profit. Yes, my success is contingent on the quality of his work, but he's just one of many offering such a service.
> I don't see why an employee should be entitled to ANY equity just because they happened to show up before anyone else
I understand what you are saying, but there is something extra you are doing as employee #1. You're taking a huge risk not working for Cisco, Oracle, Google, etc...any of the players you know won't cease to exist overnight. The equity is offered because a skilled employee is taking a risk on you(the founder), and investing his time that could be better spent at an established company. That's how I view it at least - if you offer me equity at your FaceAppInGram startup, plus the salary I would expect from other fortune 500 offers - I might be tempted to work for you. Otherwise, there is no sane reason any engineer worth their salt would take the risk.
You're taking a huge risk not working for Cisco, Oracle, Google
No, this is not risk. This is opportunity cost.
When referring to finance or economics, risk describes
the possibility that an investment's actual and projected
returns are different and that some or all of the
principle is lost as a result. Opportunity cost concerns
the possibility that the returns of a chosen investment
are lower than the returns of a necessarily forgone
investment.
A VC can lose their cash money investment in StartUpCo. That's risk. An engineer choosing between StartUpCo and Cisco faces a choice between two opportunities. The cost of choosing one opportunity is the other. That's an opportunity cost.
I think you're being pedantic. Let me explain why.
Given a choice between two alternatives, one with high variance and low median return, and another with low variance and high median return, it is perfectly sensible to use the English language (as opposed to investment jargon) term 'riskier' to describe the first alternative, if maximizing return is the goal.
The risk comes in from the fact that a startup has a decent chance of flaming out and ceasing exist in less than a year in which case you are out of a job.
While you could still lose your job at a big company, they are generally more stable with billions in the bank.
Sure, and if my opportunity costs exceed your offer then I won't work for you. BATNA is what drives compensation, and the risk of you ceasing operations definitely factors into that.
> You're taking a huge risk not working for Cisco, Oracle, Google, etc...any of the players you know won't cease to exist overnight.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thenagain, from what I've heard, A players don't hang around any particular company for more than 3 years since they are always looking to bump their paygrade. And despite what startups may ask for in job ads, they are not exclusively hiring superstar code ninja warriors.
The problem is that basically no startup pays competive salaries.
Total salary/benefits at GoogFaceSoft comes out to almost twice as much(seriously) as you'd make at the average SF startup.
It is fine to argue that you should demand fair pat, as long as you realize that you are basically saying that everyone should only work at Google or facebook or Uber.
If you sell the book the usual way, you are paid a percentage of sales; the publisher pays for web design, printing, etc out of the percentage they don't pay you, so in a very real sense, when you write a book, from your perspective, you are paying the web developer a percentage.
I've been reading some of the HN comments in response to this story and it seems you guys are saying that ANY codebase built on WP must be visibly released to the public.
So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release their code in some capacity? If so, where? And how am I supposed to declare where the sourcecode can be found--a dedicated page on my site, a comment in my HTML?
I'm really struggling to understand how the guys at Wix are the villains in this story. It seems every year Mullenweg issues a Fatwa in response to some imagined violation of WP's GPL licence. He's really becoming quite belligerent over this crusade of his.
Seriously, do we all need to release our source code if we build stuff on WP? If not, why the hell is Wix getting so much shit?
It's more about distribution. So if you make some changes and keep it on your server you don't have to show the code to everyone, but if you release a plugin for third parties to download, then everyone who gets the download should be able to read, modify and distribute the plugin code under the same license. In this case the app is distributed to phones.
If your custom plugin distributes its output, no. Generally speaking, the output of a GPL'd program is not also subject to the GPL (quines notwithstanding.)
Indeed. I was hoping to elicit some clarification and left out some of my own: if JS, CSS & HTML are part of the GPL'd product, I'd agree that those parts qualify as being 'distributed' to users.
It's about "distribution" of the software - which means that if a WP site is modified, and then given out to people to serve on their own servers (like a product that is based on Wordpress that contains for example, a ready made/installed curated set of plugins + themes), then this entire product must be opensource with the GPL.
If you are a person just running a WP site, using some custom plugins, BUT are not "Distributing" it, then you are ok.
The loophole of course is deciding whether sending out the html/css/js output of the site over the web to a visitor of your site counts as "distribution" (which is current "Not" by usual readings / interpretations of the GPL)
>So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release their code in some capacity?
Yes. WP plugin developers who charge for their plugins cannot reasonably attack people who bundle and resell/redistribute those plugins. GPLclub and other "resellers" of the plugins get a lot of crap from WP developers for pirating their work but it's very clear that this is not how it works.
EDIT: This is assuming you distribute/sell your plugin.
The controversy here is over a mobile app where distribution is much more clear cut. My understanding is that "visiting a site" doesn't count as distribution and and that the AGPL was created to close that loophole.
If they distribute the code, then yes. However, hosting an application on a webserver you control is not considered "distributing" for the purposes of the GPL, AFAIU (this is the loophole the AGPL was created to fix).
If you modify wordpress and distribute it as a software, right? Correct me if I am wrong but, if you modify wordpress and host it on your own server and serve it as a service you should not need to share all your code.
> They just never caught on in the same way as the iPhone did. It's marketing, innit. I don't think you can win against it.
The iPhone is synonymous with smartphone technology because its debut was a quantum leap ahead of the competition at the time (Blackberry, Palm, etc.). Google was working on a phone that used a physical keyboard until they saw the iPhone announcement and then quickly modified Android to ape iPhone/iOS.
I'm really sick of people trying to downplay Apple's innovations as nothing more than slick packaging and marketing. It's a stupid meme that refuses to die.
As far as I know, there were two new things that came along with the iphone: multitouch capacitive screen and 3g data plans that were actually worth using because apple threw their weight behind negotiating with the carriers. A few generations later, the iphone app store was a huge achievement too. All of those were huge, but there are also a lot of other innovations associated with the iphone that were actually around years before.
> Facebook needs to literally grow up, removing porn is one thing but clinical images, mothers feeding their children and such should not even be up for discussion.
But people are offended by seeing clinical images of nudity, mother feeding their babies, etc. And Facebook wants to placate all of their users so nobody has a reason to leave.
Of course, they can't please everyone, but they'd rather make a fool of themselves before they'd become a more morally/socially opinionated corporation like Starbucks.
Why can't those people use the function Facebook designed specifically for this in the first place, the function I use whenever I see some stupid, insipid, high school grade political meme?
"Hide this post"
I'll take honest answers and snarky ones as well, provided the snarky ones come with a genuine laugh because with this DDoS going on this morning I could REALLY use a chuckle right now..
I'd wager that they might say that once you see the damaging thing, the damage is already done. Therefore, hiding after the fact is not the same for emotionally scarring stuff and silly stuff that is just spammy.
Hrm. Okay, that's valid. Can't bring myself to agree with facebook wholesale removing content like this, but one size does not fit all so I'll give you that concession.
I've met and worked with people like that, whether it's from a cult upbringing, a personal traumatic history, mental illness, or whatever. I doubt they hang out on HN, but they probably have Facebook accounts like everyone else.
I'm a long time shaarli user and the reason I use shaarli is to get away from services such as yours. I trusted del.icio.us got bitten and will never make the same mistake again.
paperbin.co is useless and pointless to me, it is contrary to how the internet and the web is supposed to work, it is closed source crippleware with no possibility to self host, it offers no features that has not been around in competitors for years.
This is a reason why I ignore your project but am excited to participate in discussion about shaarli and wallabag.
